Creation - Evolution

[Age]

Okay so I was right again, it's some kind of intent of the (universal) 'Self'.

So, I say and write that 'infinite luck' may well be, exactly, what is happening and occurring, but you, however, conclude that 'you were right', and that it is some kind of 'intent' of the (universal) 'Self'.

This here, my friends, is a prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play.

From the outset this one has been presuming and believing that 'I' am saying and claiming 'things' here, about 'intent', which I obviously have not been, but yet this is all this one can focus on. So, what this one 'sees', and 'hears', in what I say and write here is about 'intent'.

Why make so much fuss about it?

Why do I, supposedly, make so much, so-called, 'fuss' about 'what', exactly?

Just prove your mind claim and show that it has intent, and I won't have to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

But I LOVE you 'viewing' 'me' as a 'delusional liar', and absolutely 'nothing more' than a 'delusional liar'

you doing so PROVES what I will be saying and claiming about how the Mind and the brain actually work, and how with the belief-system the brain will only 'see' and 'hear' what it wants to, which is also known as 'confirmation bias'.

you will be, once again, proving me irrefutably True here, so why would I want you to stop what you are doing here?

Also, and obviously, this thread is about 'creation-evolution', and not 'the Mind'. So, this is a different topic here, in case you had not noticed.

Furthermore, you were here demanding proof that the Universe, Itself, is evolving. I informed you that the proof is HERE, NOW, for all to 'look at' and 'see'. I then asked you another clarifying question, 'How could 'I' make 'you' 'see' 'the proof', 'for you'?'

But, instead of just answering and clarifying 'this', you, once again, went completely astray and off track, and 'now' are referring back to some other thread, of mine titled, 'The Mind'.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

This one, still, believes things here that are absolutely and thus irrefutably False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

[Walker]

Age, your concerns over evolution brought to mind an entertaining tune referencing evolution, with nice lyrics that you may enjoy.

Sojurn of Arjuna
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkXQmw1m0o8

So Arjuna and Krishna you know they're hanging out on the battlefield
Arjuna is like tired of war, he's trying to get out of this battle
So Krishna drops a little science on him, he says you know it's the way of
Spiritual growth

A man must go forth from where he stands
He cannot jump to the absolute, he must evolve toward it (can you hear that)
Krishna says at any given moment in time we are what we are
Arjuna we have to accept the consequences of being ourselves
And only through this acceptance can we begin to evolve further
We may select the battleground but we cannot avoid the battle

So Krishna tells Arjuna it follows therefore that every action under certain
Circumstances and for certain people may actually be a stepping stone to
Spiritual growth

Arjuna is to do the best he knows
In order to pass beyond that best to better
How can we prescribe our neighbors to be perfect
When it is so hard to know our own heart
The pacifist must respect Arjuna
Arjuna must respect the pacifist
Both are going toward the same goal
If they are really sincere
There's an underlying solidarity between them
Which can be expressed

Each one follows without compromise the path upon which he finds himself
For we can only help others to do their duty
By doing what we ourselves believe to be right
It is the one supremely social act

So Kirshna's reply to Arjuna occupies the rest of the story
It deals not only with Arjuna's immediate personal problem
But the whole nature of action
The meaning of life
And the aims for which man must struggle here on earth

At the end of the conversation Arjuna has changed his mind
He's ready to fight, he's ready to go ahead on
It is the way of spiritual growth
A man must go forward from where he stands
He cannot jump to the absolute
And the battle begins...

[Atla]

So, I say and write that 'infinite luck' may well be, exactly, what is happening and occurring, but you, however, conclude that 'you were right', and that it is some kind of 'intent' of the (universal) 'Self'.

This here, my friends, is a prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play.

From the outset this one has been presuming and believing that 'I' am saying and claiming 'things' here, about 'intent', which I obviously have not been, but yet this is all this one can focus on. So, what this one 'sees', and 'hears', in what I say and write here is about 'intent'.


Why do I, supposedly, make so much, so-called, 'fuss' about 'what', exactly?


But I LOVE you 'viewing' 'me' as a 'delusional liar', and absolutely 'nothing more' than a 'delusional liar'

you doing so PROVES what I will be saying and claiming about how the Mind and the brain actually work, and how with the belief-system the brain will only 'see' and 'hear' what it wants to, which is also known as 'confirmation bias'.

you will be, once again, proving me irrefutably True here, so why would I want you to stop what you are doing here?

Also, and obviously, this thread is about 'creation-evolution', and not 'the Mind'. So, this is a different topic here, in case you had not noticed.

Furthermore, you were here demanding proof that the Universe, Itself, is evolving. I informed you that the proof is HERE, NOW, for all to 'look at' and 'see'. I then asked you another clarifying question, 'How could 'I' make 'you' 'see' 'the proof', 'for you'?'

But, instead of just answering and clarifying 'this', you, once again, went completely astray and off track, and 'now' are referring back to some other thread, of mine titled, 'The Mind'.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

This one, still, believes things here that are absolutely and thus irrefutably False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Atla]

Another way to reframe the disagreement is that both Atla and Age believe there is evolution.

you "iwannaplato" can reframe absolutely anything in any way, but this will not make your 'reframe' true nor right in any way.

Exactly like the way you have reframed things here is completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, as well.

you could not be more Wrong and Incorrect here "iwannaplato".

Evolution entails change over time.

Well obviously. Change cannot happen in less than 'time'.

Possibly including changes in function/cognition.
One change that Atla would likely believe in is that increasing local complexity of specific kinds in matter led to (evolved to) certain portions of matter in cohesive self-relation now had intent, a qualities lacking before these specific configurations.
Age is assertion that all matter has intention and, it seems, always has.

"iwannaplato" is even more deluded than I first saw and realized.

Now, "iwannplato" when have I used the 'intention' word and introduced it in my views in the opening post here?

"iwannaplato" does not even know my view of 'matter', which partly explains why "iwannaplato" believes what it does here and why it has made this another completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect accusation and assertion here.

So, intention is not one of those things that via evolution arose in his schema.
Age xxplaining what has evolved and how he knows that rocks and chairs have intent and are creative, would add greatly to the OP and discussion.

This here is the primest example of how "atla" achieved what it wanted to do and set out to do. That is; trick, fool, and deceive others into thinking or believing that it was I who introduced and talked about 'intention' here.

"iwannplato" has, once again, been deceived, absolutely.

But, as I have alluded to earlier, "atla" is an expert at deceit and deception. And, as I have also alluded to, "atla" is an expert at deflecting and deception because "atla" has already tricked, fooled, and deceived "itself" through and by its own previously made up and held onto False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions and beliefs.

But "atla" is acting no different from all the other adult human beings who have been tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'things', based on APE-thinking. "atla" and others just end up deflecting 'things' from the actual and irrefutable Truth of 'things'. And then ones like "iwannaplato" who do not think and see 'things', for and by "themselves", just get tricked, fooled, and deceived into and by 'the deflection'.

IOW words I think the former issue - what has in fact evolved, what changes have taken place over time - might help others understand why he considers 'intent' to not be one of those things. That it has always been here in all matter.

Then also how he knows there is intent in the category of combinations of matter generally classed as inanimate. And with examples or what he sees as the intent in certain clumps of matter not considered by many to be alive, let alone having intent.

This would make it clearer to people who are not yet convinced or even clear how intent would be used in relation to what they might call inanimate matter.as opposed to configurations of matter they consider animate.

If the intention is to communicate better, I think following these suggestions and the ones in my previous post would be very helpful.

Okay.

But I just found if and when one has a True 'intention' of Truly wanting to learn something, then they will do what is necessarily to obtain that information/knowledge, in their 'life time'.

But, then again, maybe this one still believes that 'I' am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better with human beings here, in this forum.

If so, then here is another prime example of why it is better to never assume 'things', and why it is always better to actually seek out and gain and obtain actual clarification, first.

Further, if we take all matter as having intent, it might be possible to see the disagreement about the scope of that word.

Why would absolutely any one want to 'take' 'all matter as having intent', especially when absolutely no one has even implied this, let alone said this absolutely anywhere here, in this thread?

Intent with humans might include things like intending to invent a machine that has near zero friction, despite many moving parts, for a specific purpose.

What can be seen here is just how quick, simple, and easy it was for "atla" to deceive and fool 'another', that is; "iwannaplato", into 'looking at' and 'talking about' 'intent'. This one cannot stop 'talking about' 'intent' here, now.

Or intent might include intending to soothe the suffering of someone who recently suffering the loss of a close friend.
For Age, perhaps the intent of the matter in a dust mote and the intent in the matter of one of the people I mentioned just now can both be described by the same word 'intent'.

But to other people there would be a qualitative difference and the human intent is of a quality different from, say, the momentum of the dust mote.

So, that an understanding could be found between Age and others based on differing use of the word intent. OK, you wouldn't use that word for the dust mote because of criteria X and Y not being met, whereas I would because......and so on.

This two could lead to at least a more clearly delineated discussion.

But if there is a line in the sand around who bears the onus, steps in the direction of better communication may not be reached.

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Could they both be trying to deflect here, for some reason?

Has one been misled, deceived, tricked, and/or fooled into talking about 'intent'? Which is obviously some thing that I was not talking about, at all.

I didn't deceive anyone, your posts speak for themselves.

[Iwannaplato]

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Nope. And I continue to think clarification about creation, which tends to include the idea of intent, is right on topic. As are the other points I raised.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

If Age is not interested in communicating more clearly, that's fine.

[Age]

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Nope.

Okay, so now it looks like you do not want to talk about 'intent'. So, now I will suggest stop using the 'intent' word.

And I continue to think clarification about creation, which tends to include the idea of intent, is right on topic.

So, now it appears, again, that you really you do want to talk about 'intent', or, maybe you just want 'me' to talk about 'intent' only.

See, no one really knows what you want because you seem to have a severe communication disability in asking clarifying questions. you, like one who believes that they are better than others, seem to just expect others to know what you know or want, and expect others to do what it is that you expect or want.

As are the other points I raised.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

And, 'I' can 'show' things, but I cannot make 'you' 'see', like, 'I' can 'speak', but 'I' cannot make 'you' 'hear'.

you "iwannaplato" because of your pre-existing beliefs and presumptions you, still, do not yet know what I am in this forum for. And, the very reason for this is because of your absolute fear of seeking out answers and/or clarification from others.

If Age is not interested in communicating more clearly, that's fine.

I have spoken here, but If you do not, yet, comprehend and understand, then so be it. And, if "iwannaplato" cannot just say and write what it needs help in, in understanding and communicating, then that is, perfectly, fine.

I have explained 'creation' and 'evolution' here. And, obviously, if absolutely anyone here is interested in having absolutely anything clarified, then surely they would be smart enough, by now, to know how to create a question and pose that question for clarification. Also, and as I have already informed these posters here, the more specific the clarifying question is, when posed and asked, then the more specific my clarifying answer/s will be.

Again, like Life, Itself, this is just so simple and so easy,it is a wonder that some posters here had not worked this out for "themselves", already.

[Age]

Another way to reframe the disagreement is that both Atla and Age believe there is evolution.

you "iwannaplato" can reframe absolutely anything in any way, but this will not make your 'reframe' true nor right in any way.

Exactly like the way you have reframed things here is completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, as well.

you could not be more Wrong and Incorrect here "iwannaplato".

Evolution entails change over time.

Well obviously. Change cannot happen in less than 'time'.

Possibly including changes in function/cognition.
One change that Atla would likely believe in is that increasing local complexity of specific kinds in matter led to (evolved to) certain portions of matter in cohesive self-relation now had intent, a qualities lacking before these specific configurations.
Age is assertion that all matter has intention and, it seems, always has.

"iwannaplato" is even more deluded than I first saw and realized.

Now, "iwannplato" when have I used the 'intention' word and introduced it in my views in the opening post here?

"iwannaplato" does not even know my view of 'matter', which partly explains why "iwannaplato" believes what it does here and why it has made this another completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect accusation and assertion here.

So, intention is not one of those things that via evolution arose in his schema.
Age xxplaining what has evolved and how he knows that rocks and chairs have intent and are creative, would add greatly to the OP and discussion.

This here is the primest example of how "atla" achieved what it wanted to do and set out to do. That is; trick, fool, and deceive others into thinking or believing that it was I who introduced and talked about 'intention' here.

"iwannplato" has, once again, been deceived, absolutely.

But, as I have alluded to earlier, "atla" is an expert at deceit and deception. And, as I have also alluded to, "atla" is an expert at deflecting and deception because "atla" has already tricked, fooled, and deceived "itself" through and by its own previously made up and held onto False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions and beliefs.

But "atla" is acting no different from all the other adult human beings who have been tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'things', based on APE-thinking. "atla" and others just end up deflecting 'things' from the actual and irrefutable Truth of 'things'. And then ones like "iwannaplato" who do not think and see 'things', for and by "themselves", just get tricked, fooled, and deceived into and by 'the deflection'.

IOW words I think the former issue - what has in fact evolved, what changes have taken place over time - might help others understand why he considers 'intent' to not be one of those things. That it has always been here in all matter.

Then also how he knows there is intent in the category of combinations of matter generally classed as inanimate. And with examples or what he sees as the intent in certain clumps of matter not considered by many to be alive, let alone having intent.

This would make it clearer to people who are not yet convinced or even clear how intent would be used in relation to what they might call inanimate matter.as opposed to configurations of matter they consider animate.

If the intention is to communicate better, I think following these suggestions and the ones in my previous post would be very helpful.

Okay.

But I just found if and when one has a True 'intention' of Truly wanting to learn something, then they will do what is necessarily to obtain that information/knowledge, in their 'life time'.

But, then again, maybe this one still believes that 'I' am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better with human beings here, in this forum.

If so, then here is another prime example of why it is better to never assume 'things', and why it is always better to actually seek out and gain and obtain actual clarification, first.

Further, if we take all matter as having intent, it might be possible to see the disagreement about the scope of that word.

Why would absolutely any one want to 'take' 'all matter as having intent', especially when absolutely no one has even implied this, let alone said this absolutely anywhere here, in this thread?

Intent with humans might include things like intending to invent a machine that has near zero friction, despite many moving parts, for a specific purpose.

What can be seen here is just how quick, simple, and easy it was for "atla" to deceive and fool 'another', that is; "iwannaplato", into 'looking at' and 'talking about' 'intent'. This one cannot stop 'talking about' 'intent' here, now.

Or intent might include intending to soothe the suffering of someone who recently suffering the loss of a close friend.
For Age, perhaps the intent of the matter in a dust mote and the intent in the matter of one of the people I mentioned just now can both be described by the same word 'intent'.

But to other people there would be a qualitative difference and the human intent is of a quality different from, say, the momentum of the dust mote.

So, that an understanding could be found between Age and others based on differing use of the word intent. OK, you wouldn't use that word for the dust mote because of criteria X and Y not being met, whereas I would because......and so on.

This two could lead to at least a more clearly delineated discussion.

But if there is a line in the sand around who bears the onus, steps in the direction of better communication may not be reached.

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Could they both be trying to deflect here, for some reason?

Has one been misled, deceived, tricked, and/or fooled into talking about 'intent'? Which is obviously some thing that I was not talking about, at all.

I didn't deceive anyone, your posts speak for themselves.

Yes they do. And, my posts here are clearly saying, as well as showing, with proof, that the Universe is an infinite and eternally Self evolving-creation.

[Iwannaplato]

See, no one really knows what you want because you seem to have a severe communication disability in asking clarifying questions. you, like one who believes that they are better than others, seem to just expect others to know what you know or want, and expect others to do what it is that you expect or want.

False generalization. Many people know what I want.
Projection. It is you ageken, who talk disparagingly about everyone you communicate with and those who are not even here reading your posts. It is you who lump together all the people of this time with your judgments and present yourself as someone who does not have the problems of this time period that all others do.

Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.

My 'nope' could certainly have been clearer. So, if I write with a lack of clarity, you form a general belief. Nice.

My nope was aimed at the idea that 'intent' is not relevant to the topic and title. I should have explained that more clearly. The implicit assertion that, as asserted by you elsewhere, bringing up the issue of intent is deflection...nope.

[Age]

See, no one really knows what you want because you seem to have a severe communication disability in asking clarifying questions. you, like one who believes that they are better than others, seem to just expect others to know what you know or want, and expect others to do what it is that you expect or want.

False generalization. Many people know what I want.
Projection. It is you ageken, who talk disparagingly about everyone you communicate with and those who are not even here reading your posts. It is you who lump together all the people of this time with your judgments and present yourself as someone who does not have the problems of this time period that all others do.

Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.

My 'nope' could certainly have been clearer. So, if I write with a lack of clarity, you form a general belief. Nice.

My nope was aimed at the idea that 'intent' is not relevant to the topic and title. I should have explained that more clearly. The implicit assertion that, as asserted by you elsewhere, bringing up the issue of intent is deflection...nope.

Thank you "iwannaplato" for, once again, very Accurately proving exactly True what I have said and pointed out about you posters and human beings here.

For now, the Universe keeps 'humming' along HERE-NOW, eternally, in One evolving-creation process.

And, if absolutely anyone would like to discuss this, then 'we' can. Also, if absolutely anyone knows what "iwannaplato" wants here, then 'we' could discuss this also, as I do not, yet, know, for sure.

[Atla]

you "iwannaplato" can reframe absolutely anything in any way, but this will not make your 'reframe' true nor right in any way.

Exactly like the way you have reframed things here is completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, as well.

you could not be more Wrong and Incorrect here "iwannaplato".



Well obviously. Change cannot happen in less than 'time'.


"iwannaplato" is even more deluded than I first saw and realized.

Now, "iwannplato" when have I used the 'intention' word and introduced it in my views in the opening post here?

"iwannaplato" does not even know my view of 'matter', which partly explains why "iwannaplato" believes what it does here and why it has made this another completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect accusation and assertion here.



This here is the primest example of how "atla" achieved what it wanted to do and set out to do. That is; trick, fool, and deceive others into thinking or believing that it was I who introduced and talked about 'intention' here.

"iwannplato" has, once again, been deceived, absolutely.

But, as I have alluded to earlier, "atla" is an expert at deceit and deception. And, as I have also alluded to, "atla" is an expert at deflecting and deception because "atla" has already tricked, fooled, and deceived "itself" through and by its own previously made up and held onto False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions and beliefs.

But "atla" is acting no different from all the other adult human beings who have been tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'things', based on APE-thinking. "atla" and others just end up deflecting 'things' from the actual and irrefutable Truth of 'things'. And then ones like "iwannaplato" who do not think and see 'things', for and by "themselves", just get tricked, fooled, and deceived into and by 'the deflection'.




Okay.

But I just found if and when one has a True 'intention' of Truly wanting to learn something, then they will do what is necessarily to obtain that information/knowledge, in their 'life time'.

But, then again, maybe this one still believes that 'I' am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better with human beings here, in this forum.

If so, then here is another prime example of why it is better to never assume 'things', and why it is always better to actually seek out and gain and obtain actual clarification, first.


Why would absolutely any one want to 'take' 'all matter as having intent', especially when absolutely no one has even implied this, let alone said this absolutely anywhere here, in this thread?


What can be seen here is just how quick, simple, and easy it was for "atla" to deceive and fool 'another', that is; "iwannaplato", into 'looking at' and 'talking about' 'intent'. This one cannot stop 'talking about' 'intent' here, now.



So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Could they both be trying to deflect here, for some reason?

Has one been misled, deceived, tricked, and/or fooled into talking about 'intent'? Which is obviously some thing that I was not talking about, at all.

I didn't deceive anyone, your posts speak for themselves.

Yes they do. And, my posts here are clearly saying, as well as showing, with proof, that the Universe is an infinite and eternally Self evolving-creation.

Yes, so it's about intent, as it always has been. Except you've never proven anything.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Iwannaplato]

Continued aviodance of justifying assertions. Atla and I have both been clear and you have not justifed your use of the term creation or in considering all matter to be creative and creating.

You've asserted but not justified.

You expect others to justify but have no similar expectation for yourself.

You're a preacher. Wrong forum.

[Gee]

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Nope. And I continue to think clarification about creation, which tends to include the idea of intent, is right on topic. As are the other points I raised.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

If Age is not interested in communicating more clearly, that's fine.

(Underlining is mine.)

I feel like I am missing something here. I have just read this entire thread and do not understand why Iwannaplato and Atla insist that this thread includes the idea of "intent". I have not seen anywhere that Age has brought up or discussed intent.

Is there some prior interaction between these parties that would explain this inconsistency? Or are we talking about prior beliefs? Is someone eluding to the "God" idea? Or are we thinking that they are?

Gee

[Gee]

So, again, to get back to what I actually said and wrote here:

For those that cannot comprehend the irrefutable.

Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, are/is evolving.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

I agree with most of this, but would add that each and every action or reaction is an initial or first cause, so action or motion or activity is the fundamental base of all. All of matter and space is based on motion.

Gee

[Iwannaplato]

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Nope. And I continue to think clarification about creation, which tends to include the idea of intent, is right on topic. As are the other points I raised.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

If Age is not interested in communicating more clearly, that's fine.

(Underlining is mine.)

I feel like I am missing something here. I have just read this entire thread and do not understand why Iwannaplato and Atla insist that this thread includes the idea of "intent". I have not seen anywhere that Age has brought up or discussed intent.

Is there some prior interaction between these parties that would explain this inconsistency? Or are we talking about prior beliefs? Is someone eluding to the "God" idea? Or are we thinking that they are?

Gee

It's inherent in the idea of creation. In religion, creation, includes God's choice to create the universe. In general when we refer to creating something, we think of someone deciding to make something. Writers, authors, inventors, cooks, whomever.

And further Age when on to argue that all matter is creating. When Atla suggested that humans create, because they have certain capablities and have intent to create, Age responded by saying that humans are made of the same matter as everything else. I specifically went into this in my two longer posts, suggesting the two possible ways Age and Atla were framing the issue and where the point of disagreement is.

Most people would not say chairs and rocks create things. And since Age focuses on matter, particles are generally not thought of as creating something. X causes Y.

It's fine if Age wants to claim that an electron is creating something when it, for example becomes part of a connection between two atoms in a molecule. But then I think he needs to support that.

Atla would see the act of creating as an emergent property of some matter, not all matter. If he starts a thread, he can state that and justify it. Here Age is making a claim. But he hasn't justified it.

Intent is one facet of creating, there are others and other ways to word what is in creation and not other more basic kinds of causal chains.

And given that the title of the thread had evolution in it, doesn't evolution lead to more complicated actions/functions processes that earlier matter was not capable of?

Age doesn't need to justify the issue in terms of intent. But he does need to justify the use of creation rather than causation.

And just to be clear, I don't think his position is necessarily wrong: I would say that many compatibilists would believe that on some level he is correct, at least in saying that the types of causation are the same when humans create and when a stone rolls down a hill. My two early posts were an attempt to offer Age a way to better communicate and clarify his point and to explain how I see the position Atla represents sees it. He seems create/creation as being misapplied. Age is not interested in improving the communication, as far as I can see, and found ways to insult me for my suggestions.

[Age]

I didn't deceive anyone, your posts speak for themselves.

Yes they do. And, my posts here are clearly saying, as well as showing, with proof, that the Universe is an infinite and eternally Self evolving-creation.

Yes, so it's about intent, as it always has been.

Why?

Except you've never proven anything.

To you, maybe.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims,

Okay. If you say and believe so, then this must be so, true?

therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay.